Section 18’s bar does not apply where Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are not prima facie established.

The appellants challenged, under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the rejection of their application for pre-arrest bail by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya.

The informant alleged that on 20 July 2023, while construction was being undertaken on land claimed by him, the appellants and other accused persons arrived with a police party, demolished the under-construction house, assaulted and abused him, including by using his caste name, and committed theft and criminal intimidation.

The appellants contended that the dispute arose from construction on land recorded as public/road land in favour of the Public Works Department and that a counter-case, Konch P.S. Case No. 346 of 2023, had been instituted against the informant and his family for allegedly assaulting the police party and attempting to snatch a rifle.

During investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet/final form only against co-accused Mukesh Sao under Sections 427 and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act; the present appellants were not sent up for trial.

Whether, on a prima facie assessment, the allegations and materials disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants so as to attract the statutory bar under Section 18 against pre-arrest bail?

Whether the appellants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in view of the counter-case, the land dispute, the investigation materials, their non-submission for trial by the Investigating Officer, and the grant of similar relief to the co-accused?

The Court applied Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act governing appeals against orders refusing bail, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), which penalise intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and abuse by caste name, respectively, when committed in a place “within public view”.

The Court relied on Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435, and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, for the distinction between a “public place” and a place “within public view”; a private place may nevertheless be within public view if visible to members of the public.

It also relied on Karuppudayar v. State, 2025 INSC 132, which reiterated that the alleged insult or abuse must occur at a place within public view for Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) to apply.

The Court further applied the principle that where the essential ingredients of an SC/ST Act offence are not prima facie established, the bar under Section 18 does not prevent consideration of pre-arrest bail.

The Court treated the existence of the counter-case and the underlying land/construction dispute as relevant circumstances indicating competing versions of the same occurrence.

It noted that the Investigating Officer had not sent the appellants for trial, that independent witness statements supported their non-participation, and that the video clip produced by the informant was part of the investigation materials.

Although the FIR contained allegations of caste-based abuse, the Court found, on a prima facie assessment, that the specific statutory ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were not sufficiently established against these appellants.

Consequently, the Section 18 bar was held inapplicable. The Court also considered parity with the co-accused who had already received pre-arrest bail and the fact that the cognizance order was under challenge.

The impugned order dated 10 February 2026 was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

The appellants were directed to be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks, on furnishing bail bonds of ₹10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.